[EL] Push Polling
Trevor Potter
tpotter at capdale.com
Thu May 2 12:32:20 PDT 2013
That is what I expected…
From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:30 PM
To: Trevor Potter
Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
LOL.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
bsmith at law.capital.edu
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:18 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
To keep that horse up and going, let me restate my question in thus thread. David amplified your statements, and you said his additions made the statements even more extreme. Why? What was incorrect about David's clarifying statements about the FEC?
Trevor Potter
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2013, at 2:13 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
Beating a dead horse, let me try this again. What follows are a series of statements, put into push poll format, that are regularly made in the press:
- What would you think of the FEC if I told you it "regularly/frequently deadlocks."
- Would you be more inclined to support new restrictions on campaign finance and new disclosure rules if I told you that the political system was being swamped with dark money?
- What would you think if I told you that the FEC can't function because all of the commissioners' terms have expired?
- Would you be more likely to support SEC mandating disclosure of corporate trade association dues if I told you that shareholders wanted such information?
- Do you support sham political advocacy?
- Would you be more or less inclined to support more disclosure laws if I told you that the use of "shell" corporations to hide the sources of political funding was now a common tactic?
These and similar statements, to me, are the “push poll” that goes on every day in the press. All of these statements strike me as rather obviously biased. For example:
- I doubt that most people would think that something under 20% of votes amounted to “frequently” or even “regularly.” You can argue that, of course, because those words do not have some fixed minimum, but under 20% is not what what the terms conjure up for most people. Rarely does the press actually cite numbers. Moreover, the very phrase “deadlocks” suggests that no decision was made, when in fact in most cases it does amount to a decision not to go forward, which decides the issue. Note also that this same language was used even when the rate of “deadlocks” was 1 to 3%, as it has been for most of the Commission’s history (see e.g. Fred Wertheimers “No Bark/No Bite” from 2001, or Brooks Jackson’s “Broken Promise” from the 1980s), when I think the use of “regularly” or “frequently” is pretty much inexcusable by any standard.
- Saying the system is “swamped with dark money” offers up a rather loaded description, particularly since context ($350 million – a number often given – is under 5% of spending – a number almost never given) is typically omitted. $350 million, to the average viewer/reader, sounds like a lot. Less than five percent? Meh. My complaint is not with “reformers” who use numbers that excite people to their argument, but with a press that typically adopts that lingo.
- Suggesting that shareholders are demanding public release of trade association dues payments and much charitable giving, plus direct political spending, without any definition of what that means, is misleading. Of course some shareholders are demanding that, so the statement is literally true, as is the statement that “Americans are demanding that campaign finance contribution limits be repealed.” Both are demonstrably misleading in light of how people actually vote when given a chane. But only the former statement is routinely repeated in the press, despite actual shareholder votes going consistently and overwhelmingly against such disclosure.
- Suggesting, as Senator Whitehouse did in a recent hearing and certain “reform” advocates have regularly suggested, that the use of “shell corporations” is “common,” when there is no evidence of that at all, unless one uses the rather tendentious argument that a handful of isolated incidences over three years – literally a handful, countable on 5 fingers – is “common” amounts to a “push poll” of stating bias as fact.
- Referring to speech as “sham” issue advocacy – does this really need explanation?
I think this is a pretty simple point, and I would think “reform” advocates would be proud of how good a job they have done in setting the language of the debate. If you really want to contest this, be my guess, but do me a favor – first have your research assistant do a Lexis/Westlaw search for use of the $350 million figure; then have them do it for the 5 percent figure.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
bsmith at law.capital.edu
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
From: David Adamany [mailto:adamany at temple.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Smith, Brad; Trevor Potter
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
There's always a danger in attributing views to others. My comment was just that I would prefer a poll far less biased than Brad's. I have no comment about any other "push polls," since I rarely read polls of any kind. Each semester i devote some time in my freshman political science class to commenting about the unreliability of most polls, so they aren't too easily misled. Given Brad's stated purpose, I won't use his an an example. David
David Adamany
Laura Carnell Professor of Law
and Political Science, and
Chancellor
1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-9278
________________________________
From: Smith, Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Trevor Potter
Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
My point was that most reporting amounts to a one-sided push poll. David, as I read him, thinks it should be more one-sided still.
Brad
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2013, at 12:18 PM, "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:
I’m not clear if Brad disputes any of the factual clarifications made by David….(unlike the statements made in the SC push poll…)
Trevor Potter
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David Adamany
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:59 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Push Polling
Although I tend to see issues differently than Brad Smith, I attentively read his posts because he almost always presents a point of view quite different from mine and one that I want my students to know about. I'm not sure his proposed push poll is up to his usual standards, and I offer a rare proposal for revision of one of Brad's posts, which I have reprinted below:
I'm thinking of doing my own push poll on money in politics. It will go something like this:
- What would you think of the FEC if I told you it "regularly deadlocks" on many of the most important issues it faces. [in fact, even at current record levels, it deadlocks relatively infrequently, and most "deadlocks" actually decide the issue involved)].
- Would you be more inclined to support new restrictions on campaign finance and new disclosure rules if I told you that the political system was being influenced by $350,000,000 of [swamped with] dark money? (In fact, "dark money" - no push nomenclature there - amounts to less than 5% of 2012 spending in federal races).
- What would you think if I told you that the FEC can't function because all of the commissioners' terms have expired and the commission regularly divides with three Democratic appointees voting on one side of issues and three Republican appointees voting on the other side.? (in fact, commissioners can remain and retain full powers after the expiration of their terms).
- Would you be more likely to support SEC mandating disclosure of corporate trade association dues if I told you that a minority of shareholders strongly objected to using their share of corporate funds to support candidates they oppose or even detest? [shareholders wanted such information]? (in fact, in 12 shareholder votes this proxy season, disclosure is 0-12, with an average vote less than 20%.).
- Do you support sham political advocacy?
- Would you be more or less inclined to support more disclosure laws if I told you that the use of "shell" corporations who spend large amounts of money to influence elections and do not disclose the money they receive from wealthy individuals and from corporations who contribute to those corporations to conceal their identities? [to hide the sources of political funding was now a common tactic? (in fact, there is no evidence it is a common tactic)].
With all due respect.
David Adamany
Laura Carnell Professor of Law
and Political Science, and
Chancellor
1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-9278
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document. <-->
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document. <-->
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130502/b4684cd9/attachment.html>
View list directory